# Coastal Industrial Water Authority v. Houston Lighting & Power Co.

> Court of Appeals of Texas · April 12, 1978 · 564 S.W.2d 389

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764933

## Case

- **Full name:** COASTAL INDUSTRIAL WATER AUTHORITY Et Al., Appellants, v. HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 12, 1978
- **Citations:** 564 S.W.2d 389
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cire
- **Judges:** J. Curtiss Brown
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764933

## Opinion text

CIRE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the majority.
County courts originally had exclusive jurisdiction over condemnation proceedings. Wilson v. Donna Irr. Dist. No. 1, 8 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1928, writ ref’d). In 1971, however, the Legislature enacted article 3266a, which states in part:
The district courts of all counties in the State shall have jurisdiction concurrent with the county courts at law in eminent domain cases. The county courts shall have no jurisdiction in eminent domain cases.
Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 3266a, § 1 (Supp.1978). That statutory provision clearly removes any impediment to the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction in eminent domain matters. When HL&P filed its action for declaratory relief in the district court prior to the institution of condemnation proceedings, the district court acquired dominant jurisdiction to the exclusion of the county civil court at law. See Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263 (Tex.Sup.1974). I believe that the cases cited in the majority opinion to the contrary are inapposite, since, with the exception of City of Garland v. Mayhew, 528 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1975, writ ref’d n. r. e.), they state the pre-1971 rule. The Mayhew case can be distinguished. There, suit was first brought in the county court at law.
I therefore respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764933. Public record. Not legal advice.